Obviously QM is not just coordinate systems. The coordinate nature of quantum mechanics, the relative nature of it, is merely a property of the theory and not the whole theory. But the rest of the theory does not have any relevance to "consciousness."

Yes, that was what I said. Er, well... QM, as I understand it, doesn't have to do anything with shifting coordinate systems per se (and in fact is still incompatible with relativity). They're just sort of similar in that they both have to define some point of view and make everything else in the model relative to it. I'm still not sure why you brought coordinate systems into it. But broadly I agree with what you're saying here; I think I was saying the same thing.

My point was that communication of state to the observer in the system, or not, causes a difference in the outcome. And that from the general intuitions that drive almost all of the rest of physics, that's weird and sort of should be impossible.

The theory is fully coherent and internally consistent.

Sure. How is it when combined with macro-scale intuition about the way natural laws work, or with general relativity?

I was clearly talking about coherence of all physics, not implying that QM on its own was internally inconsistent somehow.

People see QM going against their basic intuitions and their first thought is it must be incomplete and needs to have additional complexity added to it to make it fit their intuitions

This is very, very very much not what I am doing. What did I say that gave you the impression I was adding anything to it?

Your other comment was to a Wikipedia page which if you clicked the link on your own source it would've told you that the scientific consensus on that topic is that what you're presenting is a misinterpretation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayedchoice_quantum_eraser#Consensus:_no_retrocausality

I am not talking about anything about retrocausality here, except maybe accidentally. I was emphasizing the second paragraph; "wave behavior can be restored by erasing or otherwise making permanently unavailable the 'which path' information."

Actually, let's back up. Time out. What do you think I am claiming is happening? What is your understanding of what I am saying?

If after you tell me, I tell you, no that is not what I am saying, and then relay what I am actually saying is happening, will you believe me? I feel like you've got a certain misunderstanding of what I am claiming spun up that you are vigorously debunking, that I probably also don't agree with, and that's where a lot of the disagreement is coming from. You can disagree with me, it is fine, but please take enough time to understand what I am actually saying instead of just disagreeing with some other thing. So what is it that you think I am saying?